Ron Paul A Distaster For The USA. Hes Always Wrong. Why Is There So Much Love For Him ? Wrong Paul

Originally posted by Janky Red


Not one person in this thread has been able to tell me what tool/s in Paul's ideological arsenal, are capable of addressing corporatism??? The answer is none, zero, zilch, because Ron sees business as a net positive and because of his non interventionist perspective corporations will take extreme advantage. There is a naïvety
around here that can boarder on complete denial...

Hi Janky Red
I don't know, I was under the impression he is against any connection between the government and corporations.
If a business fails, too bad, others will buy from the liquidation of it and the next will learn from the mistakes made.
None are too big to fail. But cut the lobby money the hell out. He is for companies but no connection or favoritisms in government.

We have laws that restrict businesses from screwing consumers. But if I am not mistaken, did not the supreme court just rule that there will be no more class action lawsuits. And those commie judges, that are in for life, are appointed by the puppet government. So now its harder for us to get together to make them pay, and to bankrupt them for their crimes.

I thought that all the bailouts that gives all that power to the corporations was voted against by him, over and over and over and over again. So his only tool is his vote, and he is using it. It seems to me he is against corporatism. But if elected would he not have a greater tool? Executive orders would be a good one to use. Hell, all the others use it for evil, we can hope, and his voting record makes me think he would use it for good. Oh and that is the tool they would never want in the hands of a constitutional person.

His stance on noninterventionism is on foreign policy.
But, also, I guess that would apply to not letting the government intervene outside the scope allowed by the Constitution in all things.

Ok I have already posted once, but Gorgi is really sticking to his guns. The government uses emotions to further increase their clout and power over the sovereignty. They say things like "people will die" or "this is for national security" to argue against anyone who wants to decrease the size of government.

Everyone agrees that services like FEMA are sometimes necessary. However, letting FEMA be run by the government is like having Enron Executives run an ethics program/class.

Quantitative Easing works? Q1 worked until it ran out, then the market started shrinking. Q2 is working but will soon run out in June, then the market will start shrinking. It is just printing money, which devalues the dollar, and causes oil prices to increase. The price of oil is based on the dollar. When you increase the supply of the dollar, and thus decrease the value of each unit, the price of goods (especially which are based on the dollar) increases. Now the government is saying it is the oil companies that are doing this. Go "research" the oil companies profit margins they are pretty much average. What do you think will happen when we take subsidies away from them? Price of oil will increase proportional to those subsidy cuts. That is pretty simple economics. However, the "super" Obama administration is more concerned with painting someone else as a the reason oil prices are rising instead of looking at the Quantitative Easing Fed.

I will admit that TARP was necessary, and before anyone screams that they robbed billions from the treasury, go do some research on how almost all of the TARP funds have been paid back with interest.Although it is interesting that Obama labels them "fat cats" on Wall Street, but in this case these "fat cats" paid back their loans. You here political commentators (i.e. Jon Stewart) say things like oh we bail out Wall Street, but won't help out the poor unions. The difference is that Wall Street pays it back. Unions will take the money, and come back like clock work asking for more, and singing the same song, "we are poor and helpless" (and oh by the way we will contribute to political parties too).

The stimulus on the other hand is another animal. Stimulus is government simply paying the government to get bigger, and force more people to depend on it. Go to Wikipedia and see where some of the money went. It's pretty insane. You would think since our infrastructure is crumbling it would be spent there mostly...but nope that would be logical, and our government only acts to further its political interests.

And you overall argument is in fact accurate. There are services DOH that are necessary to address large domestic problems. However, the government is inefficient, and creates 23 agencies for each problem. We need one efficient agency per problem. Not some complex bureaucracy that allows for information to be lost and miscommunicated. The DOE is not one of the strictly necessary agencies, it is a politically favored created one. Also there is about 15 other agencies related to regulating energy and pollution. How about sticking with one? I think maybe if there was one efficient and non-corrupt agency people would be more open to listening/allow it.

You argument is similar to any other pro-big government; we NEED government for some problems. Yes, we do need government to address these big problems, but we do not need them to create 52 agencies and 3 million federal jobs for each individual problem. Also, the government needs to identify the "big" problems, and stop attempting to address them all.

reply to post by DoesAnythingEverHappen


I believe what you are calling for is commonly referred to as Reform. This issue is not the size but the scope. Also who has access to make what regulations. Things need to be fixed but not abolished.

Originally posted by miconATSrender
We have laws that restrict businesses from screwing consumers. But if I am not mistaken, did not the supreme court just rule that there will be no more class action lawsuits. And those commie judges, that are in for life, are appointed by the puppet government. So now its harder for us to get together to make them pay, and to bankrupt them for their crimes.

Commie judges? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are intenionally spewing misinformation. The state is not run by the people, it is run by corporations and corporations are legal business entities.

Corporations are prevailent in capitalism, less so in socialism and totally outlawed under communism!

I thought that all the bailouts that gives all that power to the corporations was voted against by him, over and over and over and over again. So his only tool is his vote, and he is using it. It seems to me he is against corporatism. But if elected would he not have a greater tool? Executive orders would be a good one to use. Hell, all the others use it for evil, we can hope, and his voting record makes me think he would use it for good. Oh and that is the tool they would never want in the hands of a constitutional person.

Which makes him either extremely naive or simply controlled opposition for the corporate puppet state. You cannot say you are against corporations dominating government and in the same breath be pro-capitalism. That may have been possible 200 years ago and before, but it today its oxymoronic absurdism!

We no longer live in small towns in mesopotamia or middle age europe dominated by monarchs and everyone a master of a learned trade. You don't see many blacksmiths, carpenters, painters, stone masons, plumbers, electrians, basket weavers, shoe makers, hat makers working for themselves as sole proprieters. EVERYTHING IS INCORPORATED IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER!

His stance on noninterventionism is on foreign policy.
But, also, I guess that would apply to not letting the government intervene outside the scope allowed by the Constitution in all things.

I agree with his foriegn non-interventionalist policies, especially in regard to foreign market imperialism, but that should not disqualify every possible scenario that may REQUIRE some form of intervention for humanitarian purposes.

I also agree that the FED is a problem but I do not agree that we should go back to the gold standard or that we should replace this private central bank with competing private central bank. The solution instead is to fold the FED into the treasury department and allow government to issue its own currency with its own prime rate and thus greatly reduce the need for income taxes.

I also agree we need higher tariffs on american brand merchandis produced in third world countries, if that is what he wants, but not across the board tariffs on everything coming from overseas. That would be a disaster and might even bring us WW3.

The world is not black and white and I do not consider Ron and Rand Paul my savior. He is simply more honest than your typical republican but in no way is he left of the political spectrum. Big government is not necessarily a problem, its what kind of big government we have and this big governemnt is weak as hell and 100% pro corporatism.

reply to post by LexiconRiot

In its current form the government is more opposed to BIG business than it used to be....

I would vote FOR Paul only because he is against the FED.

I do not want a tiny government, I want an EFFECTIVE government. One that allows the most amount of freedom while still doing its job.

You say "the government is more opposed to BIG business than it used to be.... " this is where my investigations over the last six years make me disagree.

What I actually see, based on researching the food cartel and its antics, is Big business has learned from their mistakes. They have become much more "sneaky" They do not need direct frontal confrontations. They found those are anti-productive. This does not mean they have gone away it just means they have changed tactics!

For example from the History I mentioned

....In a number of reports written over a few decades, CED recommended that farming "resources" -- that is, farmers -- be reduced. In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs.....

Now think about that for a minute.

WHY the heck would a bunch of bankers and businessmen give a rat's behind if a bunch of red necks eek out a living on a hard scrabble farms??? Why would they bother to form a group to change it???

Because the bankers can make big money foisting fraudulent mortgage contracts on to the farmer's land to buy "needed" equipment and supplies as the USDA extension service and Ag Universities tell them to. This instantly making them "sharecropper-serfs" Corporations, often owned by those very same bankers, now have a market to sell to and most importantly, when they drive most of those farmers off the land and into the cities they have a surplus of desperate people looking for a job, renting housing, buying the essentials of life.... from the SAME people who ruined their lives in the first place!!!

You just changed an "independent society" into a very dependent society. A society that is completely dependent on the big corporations for their very survival. The stripping of wealth from the individual did not stop when the CED drove the people into the cities. There was profit to be made from every day those people live.

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught. Farmers found themselves encouraged to give up on a farming system that employed minimal outsourced inputs and capital and get "efficient" by adopting instead a system that required they go into debt in order to purchase ever more costly inputs, like fossil-fuel based fertilizers, chemicals, seeds, feed grain, and machinery. The local, decentralized food distribution networks that were previously in place became subject to corporate buyouts, vertical integration and consolidation....

Their plan was so effective and so faithfully executed by its operatives in the US government that by 1974 the CED couldn't help but congratulate itself...

The next step was to strip the wealth from all the corporations that sprang up since 1945 during the "free Market" era and consolidate the wealth they had generated. One method was the use of big business controlled government regulatory bodies to kill off the small fry. The second method was the leveraged buyouts to wipe out the successful mid size corporations.

...Of mergers and acquisitions each costing $1 million or more, there were just 10 in 1970; in 1980, there were 94; in 1986, there were 346. A third of such deals in the 1980's were hostile. The 1980's also saw a wave of giant leveraged buyouts. Mergers, acquisitions and L.B.O.'s, which had accounted for less than 5 percent of the profits of Wall Street brokerage houses in 1978, ballooned into an estimated 50 percent of profits by 1988...

THROUGH ALL THIS, THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP between product and paper has been turned upside down. Investment bankers no longer think of themselves as working for the corporations with which they do business. These days, corporations seem to exist for the investment bankers.... In fact, investment banks are replacing the publicly held industrial corporations as the largest and most powerful economic institutions in America.... THERE ARE SIGNS THAT A VICIOUS spiral has begun, as each corporate player seeks to improve its standard of living at the expense of another's.

Corporate raiders transfer to themselves, and other shareholders, part of the income of employees by forcing the latter to agree to lower wages. January 29, 1989 www.nytimes.com... New York Times

WASHINGTON -- A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world's finances are in the hands of just a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide financial system's vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis....
www.insidescience.org...

No bloody fights just an endless stream of our wealth into the coffers of "a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations"


If you look at my post on JBS Swift, you can see the current government is NOT opposed to big Big business and THAT is my major problem. We have ten corporation now in control of 80% of the world food supply, ONLY THREE beef processors and yet the Department of Justice makes placating noises

However the greedy cartels running the World Trade Organization are STILL not satisfied with part of the cake they want it ALL.

Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections, and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities. www.commondreams.org...

Remember it was CLINTON, a democrat who sent the VP of Cargill, Dan Amstutz to as trade negotiator to write the Agreement on Agriculture and it was CLINTON who signed that blasted treaty!

reply to post by miconATSrender


Well, idk Ron Paul is a free market person and corporations are anti-free market.

reply to post by crimvelvet


You make valid and scary points. My opinion is base on EPA regulations against dumping and things of that nature. There is a reason that corps want DOE and EPA "defunded."

Yes these agencies have also over reached to affect the American people. Thus they need reform. We can not afford to abolish them though. We don't want to go back to the days of the flaming rivers.

Originally posted by daddio
ALL of you seem to be buying into the OP. Do you NOT realize it is a government survey of sorts maybe. See how many people knee jerk react or react at all? This is how the shadow governments gets it's polls and then adjusts it's programs to work better int he future. The OP was obviously set-up for this project. TPTB will see how this goes, if it gets any postings on other sites or gets blogged. Then they will adjust the criteria for the program and resubmit it for more responses.

Why even give this guy the time of day?

Repost this many times over to get people to "understand" what could be and probably IS going on.

edit on 7-5-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)

You make a good point, but I think that you give the OP too much credit, and you also give the idiots in Washington too much credit. I for one hope that they read everything I post and hear everything I say... they do not scare or intimidate me at all.

Originally posted by crimvelvet

No bloody fights just an endless stream of our wealth into the coffers of "a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations"

If you look at my post on JBS Swift, you can see the current government is NOT opposed to big Big business and THAT is my major problem. We have ten corporation now in control of 80% of the world food supply, ONLY THREE beef processors and yet the Department of Justice makes placating noises

However the greedy cartels running the World Trade Organization are STILL not satisfied with part of the cake they want it ALL.

Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections, and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities. www.commondreams.org...

Remember it was CLINTON, a democrat who sent the VP of Cargill, Dan Amstutz to as trade negotiator to write the Agreement on Agriculture and it was CLINTON who signed that blasted treaty!

It all started with ronald reagan and his so called *reaganomics*-privatisation of everything under the sun and star wars program to defeat a russian threat that was already defeated by the rothschild conservative family.

Anyway you can blame democrats for most or all of privatisation when it fact elitism is right wing politics. Always has been and always will be. No one stated the deomcrats were socialists or communists, in fact how can anyone state that when the president of the socialist party himself called obama "the farthest thing from socialism"...obvious exaggeration on his part but still his point is/was democrats are mild capitalists and republicans are extreme capitalists.

Google Video Link

And before someone calls the socialists as communists as well....

Google Video Link

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by miconATSrender
We have laws that restrict businesses from screwing consumers. But if I am not mistaken, did not the supreme court just rule that there will be no more class action lawsuits. And those commie judges, that are in for life, are appointed by the puppet government. So now its harder for us to get together to make them pay, and to bankrupt them for their crimes.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Commie judges? Either you don't know what you are talking about or you are intenionally spewing misinformation. The state is not run by the people, it is run by corporations and corporations are legal business entities.

I used commie because they are not elected, they appointed for life and are the high law of the land.
I don't recall ever even thinking that the states or any of our government is run by the people.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Corporations are prevailent in capitalism, less so in socialism and totally outlawed under communism!

Lets not get off into communism, I will retract that and just call them scumbags. it that cool?

Originally posted by miconATSrender
I thought that all the bailouts that gives all that power to the corporations was voted against by him, over and over and over and over again. So his only tool is his vote, and he is using it. It seems to me he is against corporatism. But if elected would he not have a greater tool? Executive orders would be a good one to use. Hell, all the others use it for evil, we can hope, and his voting record makes me think he would use it for good. Oh and that is the tool they would never want in the hands of a constitutional person.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Which makes him either extremely naive or simply controlled opposition for the corporate puppet state. You cannot say you are against corporations dominating government and in the same breath be pro-capitalism. That may have been possible 200 years ago and before, but it today its oxymoronic absurdism!

We no longer live in small towns in mesopotamia or middle age europe dominated by monarchs and everyone a master of a learned trade. You don't see many blacksmiths, carpenters, painters, stone masons, plumbers, electrians, basket weavers, shoe makers, hat makers working for themselves as sole proprieters. EVERYTHING IS INCORPORATED IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER!

I don't think him naive for voting against the bail outs.
I don't think capitalism and corporatism are the same thing.
capitalism=private owner for profit
corporatism=control of state by large groups

We can have corporations and government separate and still be successful as a country.

Some of us do live in small towns, and I know people who do have business you listed, except for basket weavers and hat makers. Those I know are DBA not incorporated.

Originally posted by miconATSrender
His stance on noninterventionism is on foreign policy.
But, also, I guess that would apply to not letting the government intervene outside the scope allowed by the Constitution in all things.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I agree with his foriegn non-interventionalist policies, especially in regard to foreign market imperialism, but that should not disqualify every possible scenario that may REQUIRE some form of intervention for humanitarian purposes.

I was thinking more on the line of intervention in the political goings on in other sovereign countries.
Ya, I don't really have any faith in our humanitarian actions. I don't think humanitarian means what it used to. I think it means bombing the hell out of some other country. I don't know it just seems like it to me.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I also agree that the FED is a problem but I do not agree that we should go back to the gold standard or that we should replace this private central bank with competing private central bank. The solution instead is to fold the FED into the treasury department and allow government to issue its own currency with its own prime rate and thus greatly reduce the need for income taxes.

I also agree we need higher tariffs on american brand merchandis produced in third world countries, if that is what he wants, but not across the board tariffs on everything coming from overseas. That would be a disaster and might even bring us WW3.

We could take some of the FED ideas that do work and use those and trash the bad ones. We would need to audit them first. But I think the money should be backed by something, not just an agreement. And the government/tax payers would not have to pay interest on the money they print for the economy. Its time for that scam to end. It should be back in the hands of the treasury department for sure.

I think I agree tariffs would make it more profitable for companies to manufacture products here and not use slave labor over seas. We have to do this.

I don't think tariffs would bring on WW3 but our humanitarian actions might.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
The world is not black and white and I do not consider Ron and Rand Paul my savior. He is simply more honest than your typical republican but in no way is he left of the political spectrum. Big government is not necessarily a problem, its what kind of big government we have and this big governemnt is weak as hell and 100% pro corporatism.

Agree not black and white, I don't know who started the whole savior religious mantra about Paul. But I do think he would be a good President, and a step in the right direction.

I am just a common man with a common opinion.
I am not trying to imply I am anything more.


Sorry about freaking ya out with the commie crack.

reply to post by gorgi

Ron Paul says he wants a smaller government. I suppose he doesnt realize what his actions will do to the country. He says he wants to get rid of many government agencies including the DOE, DHS, IRS, FEMA, DHHS, and the federal reserve.. What is he thinking? These are horrible ideas. The DOE oversees the US energy, inspections, research ect. The DHS keeps us safe. FEMA responds to disasters. The federal reserve is a very important body of the government. Doesnt he realize that by abolishing this he will destroy the country?

The DOE held closed door meetings with all the oil companies prior to the invasion of Iraq,
and it was later revealed that Cheney and his cronies in other countries had already been
discussing the oil fields of Iraq before the war. Evil may be profitable, but its still evil.

I think the main argument for the many agencies is that a giant jobs program for make work
is better than the ppl keeping what they earn making real goods and services.

These many government agencies did not exist at the outset and many of them like FEMA
have been shown to do their jobs VERY poorly such as New Orleans, again I think most
ppl would rather keep their hard earned money and simply follow the simple logic of not
allowing building permits in the 200 year flood plan.

DHS as in Dept of Human Services is the welfare state, we have 44 million + ppl on food stamps
when we could just setup community gardens. This is just taking money out of the pockets
of the working class again, and I do not say rich because they have trusts and corporations to
hide behind. The sled dog working middle class pay the bulk of the taxes and paying ppl
to sit at home and smoke pot and play Xbox and pop out babies as a career choice has driven
our country into bankruptcy.

DHS as the Dept of Homeland Security, I think hitler started and org with almost the same name,
and this is just another tool of fear to manipulate and control the ppl as if we did not already have
enough alphabet agencies to sustain the police state. We already have city police, state police,
and federal police, the NSA, the FBI, the SS, the ATF, and the most funded military on the planet.
What exactly do we need more to be safe from, and if the current largest fear budget in the world
won't keep us safe do you really think a few trillion more will do so ???

As for the DoD do we really need 700+ bases in 130+ countries ??? We are the new Rome and
most of the world hates us for it, and how did that turn out for Rome in the end ???
Stay tuned its coming to a theater near you.

The federal reserve is what keeps the US government going. We need a strong independent federal reserve. Studies have shown that the more independent that are the lower the inflation rate is. He keeps calling the Fed wrong or that Bernanke doesnt know what hes doing but thats just plain wrong. He also wants to bring back the gold standard but thats another failure too.

Good deeds are done in the light of day.

The Fed did not come about in the light of day.

The creation of the Federal Reserve system

The Fed is not even part of the government and it has concealed
what it has been doing from the government and refused to tell
the government who it gave trillions of dollars to, but we found
out anyways and most of the bailout went to Europe.

The corruption is off the charts, the Fed is just a tool of the Banksters
and why many presidents have been against central bank power and
why the Rothschilds have pushed so hard to enact it.

He voted against the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Does he want another Enron scandal ?

I think he sticks to his guns on getting the government out of commerce
as far as being in line with the constitution, and on the surface this seems
like a bad idea, but Wall Street is little more than the numbers rackets that
were outlawed and the whole thing really should be shut down as a criminal enterprise.

You cannot trust men with that much money and power and not expect
it to go corrupt, it is just not in the power of men to resist that level of temptation,
and even if such a man was found those who are corrupt would seek to remove
him and place themselves in control.

He wants to get rid of the income tax and fun the government through tariffs. Thats insane. Tariffs reduce trade and there will not be enough money to fun the government. His idea of a small government does not work in the twenty-first century, maybe in in the 1800's.

The WTO and Codex Alimentarius are clear to most on this forum, I think you need to
do some homework, they are just tools for allowing illegal working conditions in other
countries to provide cheap goods to 1st world nations at the cost of slave labor
conditions in 3rd world nations, take the FOXCON Iphone plant suicides for an example.

He wants to have a national sales tax. There wont be enough money raised to support the government. Maybe if we abolish government to the point that the is almost no it might work, but thats not realistic. Sales taxes are regressive taxes that hurt the middle and lower class and favor the upper class. maybe he doent know that or he is in someones pocket?

The rich who use trusts and corporations cannot hide from a flat sales tax, right now with
armies of lawyers and accountants they use creative accounting like Enron that you
mentioned before to subvert the system.

All are equal under a flat sales tax, and to help those who are poor simply make there
be no tax on food and medicine, problem solved, some states like Texas already have
no sales tax on food and a few others.

He was also against TRAP. TARP was instrumental in saving the US economy and has worked fantastically. Since then the US has made a profit off it and kept the economy together.

You call it TRAP then TARP, I think the TRAP acronym does fit well.

The bankster bailout was a total fraud based on the derivatives theft that robbed ppl in this
country and collapsed Iceland, Greece, Ireland and others.

We are chasing a $1,500 trillion derivatives blackhole into oblivion, it cannot be bailed out
and it is just a new variation the old ponzi scheme and the government stooges are bought
off and scared into going along with it.

How the scam was setup and where it was hidden:

Quadrillion dollar derivatives scam raped nations

QE1 and QE2 have also worked to stimulate the economy. Ben Bernanke can also prove how it has worked and why we needed it. There is proof that it has worked.

This is a smoke and mirrors trick, all this does is devalue the currency and screw the ppl this nation
has borrowed money from and make them take steps to screw us back.

These are the EXACT same steps taken 34 times before in this nation and others that led
to hyperinflation and the financial ruin of those nations.

Read it and weep, facts not emotional belief:

34 past cases of hyperinflation due to printing money, ie quantative easing

Your arguments against Dr. Paul are either a troll effort or you are brainwashed, but with
the fluoride levels as they are and Bernays propaganda machine working overtime its
easy to see how ppl might be fooled into thinking the way you posted this.

Good Luck to all the good ppl !!!

Originally posted by miconATSrender

Hi Janky Red
I don't know, I was under the impression he is against any connection between the government and corporations.
If a business fails, too bad, others will buy from the liquidation of it and the next will learn from the mistakes made.
None are too big to fail. But cut the lobby money the hell out. He is for companies but no connection or favoritisms in government.

We have laws that restrict businesses from screwing consumers. But if I am not mistaken, did not the supreme court just rule that there will be no more class action lawsuits. And those commie judges, that are in for life, are appointed by the puppet government. So now its harder for us to get together to make them pay, and to bankrupt them for their crimes.

I thought that all the bailouts that gives all that power to the corporations was voted against by him, over and over and over and over again. So his only tool is his vote, and he is using it. It seems to me he is against corporatism. But if elected would he not have a greater tool? Executive orders would be a good one to use. Hell, all the others use it for evil, we can hope, and his voting record makes me think he would use it for good. Oh and that is the tool they would never want in the hands of a constitutional person.

His stance on noninterventionism is on foreign policy.
But, also, I guess that would apply to not letting the government intervene outside the scope allowed by the Constitution in all things.

Well that's the rub, he can be against that connection intellectually and still be part of the problem.
Look at the core of his idealism, in regards to business it is that the consumers will regulate business
with their purchases. In essence, the idea is "bad" business will be defunded and terminated by angry shoppers, which will in turn regulate business.

Do you think that will work???

I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to determine the "goodness"
of a business every time I go out making commerce.

This same idea would apply to multinational corporations doing business in the States too, which does not give
me very much confidence. Couple this approach with the fact that these entities practice the opposite of what Paul preaches in regards to dealing with them, namely lobbying and influencing government.

So, the government cannot interfere with business, but business, by the very nature of the solution proposed is free to interfere and essentially govern with their wealth and influence.


The supreme court justices who ruled on that class action case were not the commies, they were the
conservatives

“The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a crushing blow to American consumers and employees, ruling that companies can ban class actions in the fine print of contracts,” he said.

AT&T had argued that a federal law that encourages the use of arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act, trumped a California consumer protection law at issue in the case.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed.

“The California law in question stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and the objectives of the FAA. It is accordingly preempted,” Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority in reading his opinion from the bench.

www.bestgrowthstock.com...


even worse is the conservatives decided to trump state law in favor of Federal law... Which is exactly the opposite of what conservative here say they believe in... Pair this crazy attitude with Paul and I worry that
we the people will be completely replaced by "We the Contract"

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

You cannot say you are against corporations dominating government and in the same breath be pro-capitalism. That may have been possible 200 years ago and before, but it today its oxymoronic absurdism!

Watch the movie the corporation.

Google Video Link

Basically what we have now needs to be replaced with Coops, which can sound like communism,
but with a profit motive in mind but its split between all the ppl doing the work, not board members
and share holders of a numbers racket run on wall street.

To a degree Amish farms work this way when they do a community barn raising.

Coops are used by farmers thru the US for decades, USAA a insurance company for Veterans
would be a decent model to start with, basically an extension of the not for profit model.

Originally posted by miconATSrender
I don't think him naive for voting against the bail outs.

And I applaud him, I really do!

I don't think capitalism and corporatism are the same thing.

Corporatism is the only major subset of capitalism.

capitalism=private owner for profit
corporatism=control of state by large groups

Wrong. ALL corporations are private business entities, regardless if they are registered as private or public corporations.

We can have corporations and government separate and still be successful as a country.

I partially agree and I have explained this in previous posts.....

Some of us do live in small towns, and I know people who do have business you listed, except for basket weavers and hat makers. Those I know are DBA not incorporated.

But they have very little influence on washington, whereas corporations have lots of influence. Even socialism allows for corporations but they are below government in that commonwealth and strictly regulated. Industry, banking, schools, prisons etc are public property run by government.

I don't think tariffs would bring on WW3 but our humanitarian actions might.

What humanitarian actions have we been in lately other than libya and serbia?

Agree not black and white, I don't know who started the whole savior religious mantra about Paul. But I do think he would be a good President, and a step in the right direction.

I am just a common man with a common opinion.
I am not trying to imply I am anything more.

Agreed. Point taken. I think we share similar ideologies in many regards!

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by miconATSrender

 

Well, idk Ron Paul is a free market person and corporations are anti-free market.

So that is what I thought, there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.
So are people still under the impression they are the same?
capitalism=good
corporatism=bad

Originally posted by miconATSrender

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by miconATSrender

 

Well, idk Ron Paul is a free market person and corporations are anti-free market.

So that is what I thought, there is a difference between capitalism and corporatism.
So are people still under the impression they are the same?
capitalism=good
corporatism=bad

I never said they are one and the same thing. Maybe you should reread my post.....

If your saying corporations are not part of capitalism then your making a VERY DISHONEST arguement!

What more needs to be said? Is coca-cola a sole proprietership? No its not...but it DOES make profit just like you selling your potatoes in the local flea market.

Originally posted by Janky Red



Well that's the rub, he can be against that connection intellectually and still be part of the problem.
Look at the core of his idealism, in regards to business it is that the consumers will regulate business
with their purchases. In essence, the idea is "bad" business will be defunded and terminated by angry shoppers, which will in turn regulate business.

Do you think that will work???

I don't know about you, but I do not have the time to determine the "goodness"
of a business every time I go out making commerce.

I see what you are saying. However If I am out shopping and know a store chain is using slave child labor for instance. I would boycott them. And if the news broadcasted facts about it with proof from a court ruling, and everyone decided to boycott them they would fail and rightfully so. So I do think the consumers should make the decision if they fail or not.

I don't think you would have every shopper angry for no reason.

This same idea would apply to multinational corporations doing business in the States too, which does not give
me very much confidence. Couple this approach with the fact that these entities practice the opposite of what Paul preaches in regards to dealing with them, namely lobbying and influencing government.

So, the government cannot interfere with business, but business, by the very nature of the solution proposed is free to interfere and essentially govern with their wealth and influence.

hmm well, multinational corporations would be the same. If American shoppers had a problem with the way their home country is terrorizing their people or other specific human rights atrocities or just that the company is scamming people. That might be a good deterrent, knowing we would boycott their outlets here. That would be a major hit to their economy, I would think.

We could not control the lobbying there in that foreign country but we could make it a crime to bribe our law makers here. And it is bribe renamed to lobby.

The supreme court justices who ruled on that class action case were not the commies, they were the
conservatives

Ya I know I already recanted that choice of name calling. I should go back to change that to scumbags. I was not referring to the left or right. It was just a derogatory remark is all. Darn I just tried, "You have exceeded the maximum window of 4 hours allowed to edit your post." err
I'll never live it down now.

even worse is the conservatives decided to trump state law in favor of Federal law... Which is exactly the opposite of what conservative here say they believe in... Pair this crazy attitude with Paul and I worry that
we the people will be completely replaced by "We the Contract"

The Feds always trump state laws, Maybe that is why Trump might run for president.
With Paul's anti-corporatism stance, I would think capitalism would prevail.
But who the frack knows.
I just want to be a free man, in a free country, to reap the benefits of my own labor.
And I don't want to have to be responsible for every single person's debts.
I believe we need to take care of ourselves and our families and then we wouldn’t need all this government nanny state stuff. I know now-a-days anyone saying such things is considered a crazy person.

We the contract

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

You make valid and scary points. My opinion is base on EPA regulations against dumping and things of that nature. There is a reason that corps want DOE and EPA "defunded."

Yes these agencies have also over reached to affect the American people. Thus they need reform. We can not afford to abolish them though. We don't want to go back to the days of the flaming rivers.

Make dumping illegal, which it is, and have forensic police investigate it and prosecute it.

Abolish corporations and make those making the decisions serve prison terms or a death sentence.

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by kipfilet
No offense meant, but no person with a basic knowledge of modern economics takes Ron Paul seriously.

No offense meant, but no person with a basic knowledge of modern economics can possibly do anything but take Ron Paul seriously.

/TOA

Ron Pauls lack of understanding is astounding. He doesnt know what the Fed does and wants it abolished. Cutting out most government agencies will harm the middle class. NO oversight by the government will allow monopolies and fraud. National defense will be gone. Freedom will then subside.
If Ron Paul got his way he would turn the USA into Mexico or worse, Nigeria.

How about, since you don't believe Ron Paul has what it takes to run the country, you tell us who you think is qualified and why.

I would prefer none of the above. Obama is a little to weak. He gets pushed around a lot. One thing I like about Ron Paul is that he doesnt get pushed around.I understand why people like him for that reason.

/TOA

I hate it when I screw up [ quote ] tags!

So you don't have a nominee, you just know you don't want Paul or Obama? That's honest enough.

/TOA

Originally posted by LexiconRiot
For you fans of "smaller government" please Google Cultural Imperialism and Class Dominance. You would all unwittingly make the middle class the slave class. Less government leave a power vacuum. Who do you think would fill that void? The state governments have proven just as ineffective as the federal. The void will be filled with BIG business. You all love to talk about going back to the way things used to be run.

The Battle of Blair Mountain.

Do we really want to repeat of the bloody history of corporate oppression. At least with the government we have a voice no matter how splintered the political realm gets.

i dont think you realize that those very people that want smaller government also want corporations to go away, and stop spending billions on lobbying to bribe our government... also, they are referring to the America of approximately 200-230 years ago where corporations weren't such a problem... you either forget or dont realize that the corporations and the federal government have been in bed together for a looooonnnnggg time. people on here arguing against big government can be presumed to be against big business as well. they're so similar i can't see someone liking one more than the other.